Questions to the Board in ICANN60

Tue Oct 3 15:23:50 EEST 2017

Raoul
I agree that NCSG should have the same number of seats as CSG.
However, I don’t believe these seats should be selected by constituencies any more. (That is one reason why CSG has more seats, they have 3 constituencies and we have two). I think the NCSG as a whole should select two Nomcom seats, and that CSG should also only have two.

I think it would be a mistake to add just one seat, based on a constituency. It should be equality amongst SGs (stakeholder groups) instead.

Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

[IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 7:08 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Questions to the Board in ICANN60

Argh. Now I know why BSG looked unfamiliar :P

I think it's pretty much the optimal time to try and push another seat for us while the review is still going on. Soon they'll be telling us to wait for ANOTHER review...

Sorry for the terrible inaccuracies and you're absolutely right that the CSG has only three consituencies. That doesn't make my point worse in spirit though, to the contrary: They're getting 4 for 3, whereas we're getting 1 for 2. I know that we can phrase this better, unless somebody comes up with AN ACTUAL QUESTION. :)

-Raoul

On 2 October 2017 at 13:48, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
Hi Raoul,

Thank you for the suggestion.

Actually there is no such things as BSG in ICANN, the
rule is that NCUC, IPC and ISPC each get one and BC
gets two slots, while NPOC gets none.

So CSG actually gets four slots for three constituencies
and NCSG gets one for its two constituencies.

From NCSG point of view the proper thing would be
for CSG and NCSG each have three, but at the very
least NPOC should have one, too.

I'm not sure this is optimal time to ask this question,
I suspect they'd just reply "wait until next review",
but reminding them of the issue would not hurt, so I
guess we can ask this if we have no more urgent
questions at hand.

Tapani

On Oct 02 12:52, Raoul Plommer (plommer at GMAIL.COM<mailto:plommer at GMAIL.COM>) wrote:

> Since there seems to be a lack of questions, I'll have a go:
>
> The board can help in changing the clear imbalance of the NomCom seats
> within the GNSO, where the CSG has four seats with only one for the NCSG.
> In other words, the BSG has a seat in the NomCom representing each of its
> four constituencies but the NCSG is not allowed even that, abeit it has
> only two constituencies. How could the board help in resolving this
> grievance that has been outstanding for far too long now?
>
> ...or something along those lines.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On 2 October 2017 at 09:10, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We missed the deadline but let's try not to miss it by too much.
> >
> > As Kathy observed it was earlier than before, and apparently we're
> > not the only ones to miss the deadline even though many did not.
> >
> > But so far I've got only one question (from Ayden):
> >
> > "How is the Board monitoring the performance of the Office of the
> > Ombudsman to ensure that harassment complaints filed are being
> > appropriately handled?"
> >
> > If I've missed some please remind me.
> >
> > In any case, we were asked to give them two questions. Surely there's
> > something else we want to ask them, too. Any suggestions would be
> > welcome.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:39:16PM -0400, Kathy Kleiman (
> > kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>) wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tapani,
> > >
> > > Isn't this weeks earlier than usual?  Many Working Groups, subteams,
> > > programs and other ICANN-related groups are holding meeting this week and
> > > many of us are jumping call to call. If we are the last of the great
> > > volunteers in the ICANN system (as so many others are now paid for their
> > > participation), let's ask for a bit more time to allow us time to
> > think...
> > > and plan.
> > >
> > > Best, Kathy
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/28/2017 9:55 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > Reminder,
> > > >
> > > > Deadline for these questions is tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > Tapani
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 06:38:58AM -0400, Ayden Férdeline (
> > icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>) wrote:
> > > > > Dear Tapani, all-
> > > > >
> > > > > Just over a year has passed since a complaint of harrassment was
> > reported to ICANN during the Marrakech meeting. Since then, the response
> > has included the adoption of a new community anti-harrassment policy and
> > amendments to the Expected Standards of Behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am curious to hear from the Board as to how satisfied they are
> > with the effectiveness of these measures, particularly in those instances
> > where complaints have been filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, as the
> > complaints procedure outlines. As the Board may recall, community opinions
> > differed over whether the Ombudsman was best placed to deal with such
> > complaints, with some thinking that a committee of trained human resource
> > professionals would be better positioned to examine cases, provide
> > determination, and, where necessary, call for remedial action.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is thus, how is the Board monitoring the performance of
> > the Office of the Ombudsman to ensure that harassment complaints filed are
> > being appropriately handled? Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ayden Férdeline
> > > > > [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)<http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5d(http:/www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>
> > <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)<http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(http:/www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > > > Subject: Questions to the Board in ICANN60
> > > > > > Local Time: 1 September 2017 7:55 PM
> > > > > > UTC Time: 1 September 2017 18:55
> > > > > > From: ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO<mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> > > > > > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As usual we"ll be meeting with the Board in Abu Dhabi, and they"ve
> > > > > > asked us to submit two (2) questions for them as soon as possible
> > but
> > > > > > no later than 29 September.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggestions would be appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (The Board will also ask us questions. I"ll post them separately
> > > > > > as soon as they"re finalized.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
--
Tapani Tarvainen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171003/8bdb88ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2917 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171003/8bdb88ef/attachment.jpg>